Page 12 of 17 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 ... LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 168

Thread: Resistance and Refusal by Banks

  1. #111
    I trust that you realize with their first response mentioning your demand for lawful money you have proof of service that they have received your Demand?


    Beyond that I believe you are toying with your bank and risk reflecting back on you what you project.

  2. #112
    Quote Originally Posted by David Merrill View Post
    I trust that you realize with their first response mentioning your demand for lawful money you have proof of service that they have received your Demand?

    Maybe I was not clear previously. I am not out to get the bank. I am not out to get anyone, for that matter. We all know the banks like how they do business and really have no interest in changing it. After I speak with an officer of the bank - man to man - in a non threatening though not backing down mode either, the officer has an option comply or not. I may get lucky to speak to someone who gets it and will simply reply - no problem let's do it. However, my experience, living in Florida for 22 years is "they ain't too bright down here" lol. A likely scenario is the officer will do nothing. This then is the beginning of the registered letters, similiar to what I posted. Will the officer respond, again being Florida, he will turn it over to legal and legal - not being too bright as well, will send a response something like was sent to Freed. Per my first letter, this is a non-response and it goes into default. Most fraudsters do not answer anything under penalties of perjury with full commercial and personal liabiliy - and really how could they? Accordingly, the three registered letters UNANSWERED [at the bank's discretion], now goes into damages. As I said earlier, it is not about $$ but rather to obtain remedy. But THEY do not see it that way. Just remember how many times WE HAVE all signed something swearing to abide, do or be held liable. I really do not see this as anything but normal business in the world of commerce.

    Beyond that I believe you are toying with your bank and risk reflecting back on you what you project.
    I have no intention to toy with any bank or officer. It is simply, it is a demand, not a request. I can do this politely and in honor. THe officer has the option to accept or deny. And for me it is all good. Any presumption I MAY HAVE is solely based upon other's experiences in dealing with the PTB. I fully understand everything is consciousness and intention. But I also understand that we are tested and FOR A VERY GOOD REASON, may I ad - not that I particularly like it but I do understand. I see aboslutely no down side to what I have outlined.

    If the banks are required to follow 12 USC 411, then there really is no issue. If not, then a grown up response would be "I am sorry the bank will not open the account with this request and I as an officer am willing to sign this under penalties of perjury with full commercial liabily. 12 USC 411 is optional and as a bank, we do not need to follow that law". The last reponse I got from wells fargo was good bye and good luck with a smirk.

    I look at this as a test - I needed to go back and study more and ask questions. Am I prepared? Who really ever is 100%? But at this time, I feel confident to move foward in whatever manner is appropriate and it can be done in honor, integrity with any intention of "getting them". I consider myself a peaceful man who is here on this planet to experience all of God's glory as a living soul incarnate using the usufruct as ORIGINALLY INTENDED for all of us.

  3. #113
    Sorry to use that term "toying". I still do not see the purpose though except some kind of patrolling.

    I probably would have agreed with your approach two months ago. One suitor pointed out after explaining the trust structure that he has not been granted the authority to actually redeem in lawful money, only to demand it. This money is not his for any such execution of law.

    Attached find the near final draft.
    Attached Files Attached Files

  4. #114
    It appears a bigger question NOW must be asked? Do we have any right to redeem lawful money? If not, then there is no sense moving forward with any of this. Specficially what trust structure is being referred?

    I would NOT be in favor of this type of lawsuit. It playing in their private sandbox and not a likely win. You only go into private court with the victory in hand before you enter the ship. This is why I recommend the 3 letters. its a done deal.

    I do not know what you mean by "patrolling", so I can not answer this.

    David, if you have a suggestion on what WE should do, please advise. I take it you are redeeeming lawful money as placed on your signature card with the bank. This is a presumption as I have no first hand knowledge of this.

    Another intersting aspect to the comment "One suitor pointed out after explaining the trust structure that he has not been granted the authority to actually redeem in lawful money, only to demand it. This money is not his for any such execution of law." This is strongly suggesting that WE are not permitted then the exemption on the 1040 on line 21 for redeeming lawful money. If we can ONLY demand LM but not actually redeem it because we are not authorized or a party to THEIR private club, then this exemption would be for ONLY authorized persons. This appears not to be consistent with other suitor's opinions of the tax exemptoin for lawful money. So maybe this suitor has some bad info????

    David can you please elaborate

    thanks - Tony

  5. #115
    HA! now we begin to see the real "salsero." And could you ask Freed G. to come back - I have a question for him.

  6. #116
    Quote Originally Posted by salsero View Post
    It appears a bigger question NOW must be asked? Do we have any right to redeem lawful money? If not, then there is no sense moving forward with any of this. Specficially what trust structure is being referred?

    I would NOT be in favor of this type of lawsuit. It playing in their private sandbox and not a likely win. You only go into private court with the victory in hand before you enter the ship. This is why I recommend the 3 letters. its a done deal.

    I do not know what you mean by "patrolling", so I can not answer this.

    David, if you have a suggestion on what WE should do, please advise. I take it you are redeeeming lawful money as placed on your signature card with the bank. This is a presumption as I have no first hand knowledge of this.

    Another intersting aspect to the comment "One suitor pointed out after explaining the trust structure that he has not been granted the authority to actually redeem in lawful money, only to demand it. This money is not his for any such execution of law." This is strongly suggesting that WE are not permitted then the exemption on the 1040 on line 21 for redeeming lawful money. If we can ONLY demand LM but not actually redeem it because we are not authorized or a party to THEIR private club, then this exemption would be for ONLY authorized persons. This appears not to be consistent with other suitor's opinions of the tax exemptoin for lawful money. So maybe this suitor has some bad info????

    David can you please elaborate

    thanks - Tony
    It is nothing more than a proposed mental model. Speaking for myself, METRO = Districts, I am authorized and so is the brain trust. I mark the currency as redeemed any time it pleases me. It has the effect of teaching others who handle it because the CODE can be found on Cornell's website.

    I think that by deferring the fraud back to Congress and not patroling the bank a suitor is completely justified to be making his demand as this was the remedy designed for state and national banks.

    But mainly this is a decision to be decided by the courts or Congress. And it has already been voiced. Nobody will touch it otherwise.

  7. #117
    Quote Originally Posted by salsero View Post
    It appears a bigger question NOW must be asked? Do we have any right to redeem lawful money? If not, then there is no sense moving forward with any of this. Specficially what trust structure is being referred?

    I would NOT be in favor of this type of lawsuit. It playing in their private sandbox and not a likely win. You only go into private court with the victory in hand before you enter the ship. This is why I recommend the 3 letters. its a done deal.

    I do not know what you mean by "patrolling", so I can not answer this.

    David, if you have a suggestion on what WE should do, please advise. I take it you are redeeeming lawful money as placed on your signature card with the bank. This is a presumption as I have no first hand knowledge of this.

    Another intersting aspect to the comment "One suitor pointed out after explaining the trust structure that he has not been granted the authority to actually redeem in lawful money, only to demand it. This money is not his for any such execution of law." This is strongly suggesting that WE are not permitted then the exemption on the 1040 on line 21 for redeeming lawful money. If we can ONLY demand LM but not actually redeem it because we are not authorized or a party to THEIR private club, then this exemption would be for ONLY authorized persons. This appears not to be consistent with other suitor's opinions of the tax exemptoin for lawful money. So maybe this suitor has some bad info????

    David can you please elaborate

    thanks - Tony
    The statute is quite clear that a person (natural or otherwise) could only demand redemption on the occasion that he had FRN's, which he would naturally obtain at a Federal Reserve bank (like by cashing or depositing a check, receiving a direct deposit, etc, for which the FRB has already determined that you have chosen, or not denied, that you want FRN's; note that under the legal tender law, the banks can assume this, and the choice clearly favors them doing so), so the clear meaning of the statute is that the remedy (avoidance of FRN's) must be with the purveyors of same. There is no trust issue here; whoever came up with that was propagating red herrings, or was mis-directed by same. The CQVT could hold LM as easily as FRN's.

    As to the lawsuit vs patrolling the banks, I perceive David's advice is this: you have no duty to force the bank to comply with your demand; that duty lies with the FRB. The statute designates their duty to 'supervise' the banks chartered under 12 USC, so let them do it. The suit is the simplest way, and it avoids all the confrontations, lies, and mis-direction you will likely get from the bank. I like it.

    PS to JohnnyCash: like the trust, I am always here. Ask me anything. Freed G

  8. #118
    Sometimes I feel that the OCC (Office of the Comptroller of the Currency) may be more in charge of enforcement and imposed risk management.

  9. #119
    Hi Freed, My question is about my parents and older folks generally. They have worked diligently for years and like yourself now receive SS benefits deposited directly into the bank. And I see we all agree that SS$ is tax-free. And despite all their hundred thousand$ earned and diverted to govt/banking cartel they did manage to put a little away – some in a fully qualified retirement plan and some just dollars. As you know, the Golden Years often arrive with more ailments and more health concerns. And some of that elder healthcare is very expensive and there's always a possibility one of them will require something very costly like a nursing home (although I would try to avoid it). I've heard several scare stories here like "they take all your money" or "well you know they cost 12 thousand a month?" etc.. So my question relates not to passing savings on to heirs but more ... how to preserve some of that savings for the healthier parent, so he/she isn't left destitute by the sicker one's medical costs? I've received differing advice from people. Some talk about "lookback period" and Special Needs trust, and so forth. Do you have any words of wisdom?

  10. #120
    I too have questions about this. It is a very puzzling topic!

    Could you please repost your comment as an opening post for a new thread?



    Quote Originally Posted by JohnnyCash View Post
    Hi Freed, My question is about my parents and older folks generally. They have worked diligently for years and like yourself now receive SS benefits deposited directly into the bank. And I see we all agree that SS$ is tax-free. And despite all their hundred thousand$ earned and diverted to govt/banking cartel they did manage to put a little away – some in a fully qualified retirement plan and some just dollars. As you know, the Golden Years often arrive with more ailments and more health concerns. And some of that elder healthcare is very expensive and there's always a possibility one of them will require something very costly like a nursing home (although I would try to avoid it). I've heard several scare stories here like "they take all your money" or "well you know they cost 12 thousand a month?" etc.. So my question relates not to passing savings on to heirs but more ... how to preserve some of that savings for the healthier parent, so he/she isn't left destitute by the sicker one's medical costs? I've received differing advice from people. Some talk about "lookback period" and Special Needs trust, and so forth. Do you have any words of wisdom?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •